What A Day - Avoiding War In Iran And Cancer In America

Episode Date: January 9, 2020

President Trump announced economic sanctions on Iran following Tuesday’s missile strikes, but he didn’t call for escalation. Congress is taking steps to block military action in the off chance he changes his mind.  A new report from the American Cancer Society says the cancer death rate in the US dropped by 2.2 percent from 2016 to 2017. That’s the largest decline ever reported in the span of a year. Heck ya! And in headlines: announcing Grimes Junior, Teen Vogue loves Facebook, and big plans from Andrew “Cheech” Cuomo!

It's Thursday, January 9th. I'm Akilah Hughes. I'm Gideon Resnick. And this is What A Day, the real reason that Prince Harry and Meghan are moving to North America. They want to share a continent with our podcast. I totally get it. Pop on over to WOD in it. What? On today's show, military conflict between the United States and Iran may be de-escalating. A new report shows lung and skin cancer rates are on the decline.

And then some headlines. First, the U.S. assassinated an Iranian general. Then Iran vowed to strike back. They did. And now we are back to sanctions. On Wednesday, President Trump announced new economic sanctions on Iran following the country's launch of more than a dozen ballistic missiles at two military bases in Iraq, where Americans are stationed. Yeah. So big picture. Trump, thankfully, did not escalate the situation or call for further military action and also said that there were no casualties. Now, that's in part

because the United States was apparently aware that something was coming. Iran appears to be standing down, which is a good thing for all parties concerned and a very good thing for the world. No American or Iraqi lives were lost because of the precautions taken, the dispersal of forces, and an early warning system that worked very well. Long 25 seconds there. What, of course, was missing, though, from the remarks was further clarity about why General Soleimani was killed in this drone strike anyway, which was the whole reason why things got to the stage

between the United States and Iran in the last few days. Not to mention the fact that President Trump, just a few days ago, was threatening war crimes like bombing cultural sites. Right. While we're happy to see that the imminent threat of war might be subsiding, at least that's where things stand right now,

there can't keep being this game of Trump puts his head in a bucket, then pulls his head out, and everyone on TV is like, yay, he got the bucket off. I mean, we've just been at this too long. Right. It's the classic, this is the day he became president meme. Well, thankfully, we don't always have to listen to cable news pundits because they are not elected officials after all. Some of them used to be. Some of them did used to be, and some of them do go back and forth and some future ones will maybe that could happen as well. God forbid. The topic of the day,

though, did quickly become how Congress could rein in actions like this. And there was some genuine rare anger among Republicans. On Monday's show, we talked with Congressman Ro Khanna a little bit about some of the ways that Congress was going to attempt to stop unilateral actions like this from the president. And where are they at on that now? Well, so House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said that the House is going to vote later today to ensure that the president cannot proceed with military action against Iran without explicit authorization from Congress, how it's supposed to typically work. And that would strengthen Congress's case to hopefully prevent these sorts of actions or at least make it clear that they are not within the realm of the executive branch, that you can't just willy nilly decide when you are in a war or not.

It's probably going to pass the House, but a much tougher hill in the Senate, given Republican control. We should add a disclaimer on the show that that's something we'll say about legislation all the time, every single day. But there were a few Republicans on Wednesday who were not all that happy with the administration, to say the very least. They came out of this meeting, this Senate briefing that they had, and that actually convinced a couple of the senators to change their minds on where they stood on imposing limitations on the war powers of the president. I had hoped and expected to receive more information outlining the legal, factual and moral justification for the attack. I was left somewhat unsatisfied on that front.

The briefing lasted only 75 minutes whereupon our briefers left. This, however, is not the biggest problem I have with the briefing, which I would add was probably the worst briefing I've seen, at least on a military issue, in the nine years I've served in the United States Senate. What I found so distressing about that briefing was that one of the messages we received from the briefers was, do not debate, do not discuss the issue of the appropriateness of further military intervention against Iran. And that if you do, you'll be emboldening Iran. The implication being that we would somehow be making America less safe by having a debate or a discussion about the appropriateness of further military involvement against the government of Iran.

Now, I find this insulting and demeaning, not not personally, but to the office that each of the 100 senators in this building happens to hold. Yo, Republicans had time. That was a Republican? Yeah, honestly. No, it's pretty crazy. Oh my gosh. It's Mike Lee from Utah, and he actually is pretty consistent on this stuff. He previously worked with Senator Bernie Sanders on a Yemen war powers resolution last year,

basically the same issue, but with involvement in Yemen. Senator Rand Paul was another Republican who was vocally pissed on Wednesday, more of the sort of libertarian brand of Republicans, if you will. Yeah, I was gonna make a joke about Rand Paul here. I'm gonna not gonna hold that for me. Okay, so the drone strike happens. People are like, what the fuck? Then they all come to Congress and try to explain why it was justified. And they have a hard time convincing people might be controversial to say, but I have a feeling that these guys aren't at the top of their game. No, that's pure crazy talk. The officials that were leading the briefing included

Defense Secretary Mark Esper, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, CIA Director Gina Haspel, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley. You know, the top guys are supposedly top guys and women are supposedly in the room delivering all of this information that was apparently deeply satisfactory to the members who the administration officials were basically like, hey, if you guys spend all your time debating the president's war powers, which is your job effectively, and who the president can kill and win, then you're emboldening Iran. I guess that's how it goes. But at least one prominent Republican senator did agree with the position that was presented in that meeting. So they thought that a war powers debate might send the wrong signal to the Iranians. I think they're right. They didn't say you can't debate.

I think they're overreacting, quite frankly. Go debate all you want to. I'm going to debate you. Trust me, I'm going to let people know that at this moment in time to play this game with a War Powers Act, which I think is unconstitutional, is that whether you mean to or not, you're empowering the enemy. Yep, that was Senator Lindsey Graham, who has never met a potential war he didn't like. Yeah, I'm just going to say for no reason at all, you know, that he's up for reelection this year. Just going to let it sit out there in the air.

Let's all just feel that up for reelection. Unrelated to the current story. Yeah, not at all. Not at all. The next part of the story will continue later today when the House is expected to take some action on war powers as they relate to the president and what he can do in Iran. And hopefully the president can and will be held accountable. We'll keep track of it as it develops and let you know what else happens. According to a new report from the American Cancer Society, the cancer death rate in the United States dropped 2.2% from 2016 to 2017. That's the largest decline ever reported in the span of a year, which is great news for us. So suck it, Grim Reaper. Akilah, what does

the research actually say about why those rates are dropping? So there are a few reasons for the drop. But before we get into them, let's talk about what that 2.2% number actually represents. So what's really driving this is lung cancer rates and skin cancer rates, and that's where they've seen the most progress. So a lot of that is due to changed behaviors in the population, so less smoking, wearing sunscreen. But also there are much better treatment options than there have been previously. The report did also say, though, that progress has

stalled on other types of cancers. Those cancers are prostate, breast, and colorectal cancers. Experts blame sedentary lifestyles and unhealthy food, which can lead to hormonal issues and inflammation. But they also blamed, you know, geographic, economic, and racial disparities and access to care and exposure to environmental toxins. So, you know, lots of factors. Right. And these numbers are kind of more reflective of lung and skin cancer rates declining versus all cancer rates overall declining. And statistically, lung cancer kills more people than breast, prostate, colorectal, and brain cancers combined. So why are people more likely to survive lung cancer now? Yeah, I mean, a big part of that answer is how doctors are treating cancer now. So imaging technology has advanced to a point that doctors

are now accurately assessing the stage of cancer and its prognosis. So, you know, there's not all this overtreatment that might lead to worse side effects. In recent years, more doctors have turned to less invasive options for surgery, which leads to better recovery times and outcomes. And immunotherapy has become way more widely used since 2015. So immunotherapy, for those who don't know, is essentially when there's something that stimulates your immune system to help you fight the disease and the tumors. The same can also be said about skin cancer. And it's also really important to note, though, that even though there has been progress, the progress is uneven across the

country. So these cancer death rates still vary between states that promote preventative health care like vaccinations and those that tend not to. So perfect example from The New York Times. You are probably more likely to get cervical cancer in Arkansas than in Vermont because Arkansas hasn't widely adopted the HPV vaccine as, you know, Vermont has done for the past decade. Okay. Well, now it's time to address the elephant in the room. That is, we are a daily news podcast and other daily news shows did a whole two part special on teens drooling. So if Gen Z smoking and vaping usage is up, does that mean that this progress could be lost at some point? So it is tough to say right now. So scientists are still studying the effects of e-cigarettes when used for long periods of time. And there are carcinogens and

e-cigarettes. They just don't know yet what the full cancer risk is because it's a new thing. But based on the report, the decline in deaths from lung cancer can be attributed both to people quitting smoking and advances in treatment. So if dueling leads to cigarette smoking, then yeah, we could see a reversal in this downward trend of lung cancer. That would be bad. Yeah. But one thing that is conclusive is that access to treatment and vaccines and advocating for equal treatment across socioeconomic and racial lines will, in the long run, ensure less people die from cancer. Also, if you smoke, stop smoking. The sooner, the better.

If it was your New Year's resolution, I wish you luck. Let it go. And also, thank goodness for science and technology. It goes without saying, but vote for a candidate who believes in science. Make sure that everyone has health care. Just do it. It's that easy. Let's wrap up with some headlines.

Headlines. As devastating wildfires continue to burn in southeastern Australia, the country's largest media company has been repeatedly spreading misinformation about them and their cause. News Corp, owned by Rupert Murdoch, has repeatedly argued via their newspapers that this year's fires are no worse than those of the past, which is not true. In the past four months, about 15 million acres have burned more than the previous 15 years combined. Murdoch's company has also falsely downplayed the role of climate change and instead exaggerated the role of arsonists, calling the fires a, quote, arson emergency rather than a climate one. Truly, you would need to be a world class arsonist to make this happen. News Corp has denied its effort to divert attention from

climate change. Yeah, well, imagine being that good of an arsonist. Why would you want that skill set? Anyway, New York Governor Andrew M. Cuomo announced his intent to legalize weed in the state by 2020 on Wednesday. He tried this last year and could not make it happen, but now he seems ready to get back on that sticky green horse and try again. The governor cited a history of racist drug policy towards communities of color as a reason to legalize and added that a legal weed program could bring in millions in tax revenue. If this happens, I will officially have no reason to stay in Los Angeles.

Don't go, Akilah. I'm leaving. I don't know anyone else. I'm on the plane. I go it alone. The mouthpiece of Gen Z teen Vogue ran an article yesterday praising Facebook for fighting disinformation in the upcoming 2020 election. Weird. Well, since I know it's good to accept everything I read online without investigating, I'll just move on from this kind of weird and surprising story. Or will I? What really happened was that the story was sponsored editorial content, which we learned from a label that was added after it was first published.

Only after that, the label was removed. Then the whole article got taken down. I know, crazy. It's a wild saga and a bad look for Facebook, who seemed to be playing fast and loose with the public trust even after their site became a nasty little birdbath of fake news leading up to the 2016 election. I just don't trust the blue man. All right, move over, Cybertruck. Looks like Elon Musk's next innovation is the cyber child. Elon's partner since 2018,

the musician from the future Grimes, made an Instagram post yesterday that strongly suggested she is pregnant. She's shirtless in the pic and has a 3D fetus photoshopped onto her belly. If you need more confirmation that this is really happening, it's already passed the Yang test,

meaning presidential candidate Andrew Yang tweeted out his congratulations. We echo his congrats and look forward to meeting this baby who, with their super-powered creative-slash-analytical brain, will one day have to save our civilization. And those are the headlines. That's all for today.

If you like the show, make sure you subscribe, leave a review, give us a rating, nominate us as the new Duke and Duchess of Sussex, and tell your friends to listen. By the way, if you're into reading and not just laundering instructions for fun jumpsuits like me, what a day is also a nightly newsletter. Check it out and subscribe at crooked.com slash subscribe. I'm Akilah Hughes. I'm Gideon Resnick. And that's how you innovate a cyber child. Our theme music is by Colin Gilliard and Kashaka.